PS3 outsells X360 in 2009

[99semaj]

Wow, the numbers were more dramatic than I expected:

From Jan 4/09 thru Dec26/09, PS3 outsold its competitor by 23%, or 2.25 million consoles globally.


2009:

PS3: 12 004 000
X360: 9 744 000

Since PS3 launch:

PS3: 31 017 000
X360: 31 415 000

Since X360 Launch:

PS3: 31 017 000
X360: 36 580 000

Now, instead of rehashing the points made in so many similar flamed out threads, I'll offer a new perspective: I can really see Sony reclaiming top sales/profit spot in this generation solely based on the fact that its hardware has so much more headroom left in it versus the more tired X360. Neither party has made any money to sink into the next generation yet, so this will be interesting to see play out.

Was X360 right to come to market quicker and gain an early lead? Or was Sony right to sacrifice the photo-ops and early share to come out with a platform with longer shelf life and broader appeal? Anybody with "poll" privileges care to create one?

[Canterbury Tail]

I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison of game sales per console, as anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that 360 game sales are considerably higher with PS3 owners owning fewer games.

[99semaj]

Originally Posted by Canterbury Tail

I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison of game sales per console, as anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that 360 game sales are considerably higher with PS3 owners owning fewer games.

That could be interesting, but if we're counting software, wouldn't we could BD sales attached to PS3?

Again, though, that point and many other good ones have already been fleshed out in other threads. I'm more curious about the end-game.

[QuickSilver]

Why count BD sales? They have nothing to do with a gaming machine.

[g011um]

I agree with QuickSilver. How could you possibly roll in Blu-Ray sales?

Comparing BD sales for PS3 owners vs other Blu-Ray manufacturers would be interesting (but its not a statistic thats possible to get) as would BD sales vs game sales for PS3 owners (i.e. attach rate for BD vs games; also not possible)

I think if you're going to try an add oranges to the apple comparasin, then you'd have to try and somehow roll in HD-DVD sales, movie and TV rentals and downloads, etc etc.

whereas many MS "exclusives" can be ran by any decent mid range PC. *cough* Mass Effect/L4D

Can you play those on the PS3? Then they are "exclusive" when comparing the consoles, which I think is what most people mean when they say that. Guerilla and Sony could just have easily released Killzone 2 on the PC, and most people would still considered it a PS3 exclusive because it didn't run on the 360.

[dezzpayne]

Originally Posted by g011um

I agree with QuickSilver. How could you possibly roll in Blu-Ray sales?

Comparing BD sales for PS3 owners vs other Blu-Ray manufacturers would be interesting (but its not a statistic thats possible to get) as would BD sales vs game sales for PS3 owners (i.e. attach rate for BD vs games; also not possible)

I think if you're going to try an add oranges to the apple comparasin, then you'd have to try and somehow roll in HD-DVD sales, movie and TV rentals and downloads, etc etc.



Can you play those on the PS3? Then they are "exclusive" when comparing the consoles, which I think is what most people mean when they say that. Guerilla and Sony could just have easily released Killzone 2 on the PC, and most people would still considered it a PS3 exclusive because it didn't run on the 360.

Actually it's not the same at all. If I REALLY wanted to play the Mass Effect series and it wasn't out for the PC I would have no choice but buy a 360 but lucky for me it's on the PC so I don't need to.

If you REALLY wanted to play the Uncharted series you're getting a PS3.

[eimaj]

At CES, MS said they have sold about 39 million 360's so I wonder where the 2.5 million discrepancy comes from.

[dezzpayne]

Assuming Sony continues to chug along as they did in 2009 I believe they will overtake MS, maybe even in 2010.

MS have deep pockets though and I don't expect them to let Sony have their way.

Sony's biggest advantage are it's 1st class, 1st party studios who really cranked out some spectacular games last year. Wouldn't be surprised if MS made some acquisitions this year.

Also, as I have said before: If you had to make a logical choice today between one or the other I believe the PS3 is the best choice. It has many true exclusives whereas many MS "exclusives" can be ran by any decent mid range PC ie Mass Effect/L4D.

Recent AAA sales:

Batman: Arkham Asylum
PS3 1.66M
360 1.33M

Dragon Age
PS3 500K
360 1M

COD
PS3 5.7M
360 8.4M

RE5
PS3 2.72M
360 2.53M

Street Fighter IV
PS3 1.57M
360 1.37M

Keep in mind most of these numbers are BEFORE the PS3 price drop and subsequent flooding of the market with new PS3 owners. 360 is not the software juggernaut it was. 2010 software sales will be more interesting.

[eimaj]

Originally Posted by Canterbury Tail

I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison of game sales per console, as anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that 360 game sales are considerably higher with PS3 owners owning fewer games.

Just go down to software sales. The 360 has a 2+ game/console lead right now.

[hugh]

So here is the numbers I got when I queried total sales for the three major gaming consoles.

Total

• Wii - 64,382,443
• XBOX 360 - 36,580,655
• PS 3 - 31,017,435

So PS3 sold 2 million more than XBOX in 2009. IF that continues then the PS3 will overtake the XBOX 360 in 2013, which is approximately seven years after the Xbox 360 was released. I don't know about you but I sure as hell hope that we will have new gaming consoles coming out by 2013!!!

Interesting but hardly impressive.

What I do find impressive is that the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined just beat out the Wii.

[jayoldschool]

Was X360 right to come to market quicker and gain an early lead? Or was Sony right to sacrifice the photo-ops and early share to come out with a platform with longer shelf life and broader appeal?

Yes, the X360 was rushed with bad hardware in order to grab as much market share as possible before the technically surperior PS3 arrived. IMO, Sony did the right thing to get the hardware right by waiting.

[becks]

The real numbers that matter are how much has each company made on the sales of these consoles and I would bet that MS would blow Sony out of the water (is Sony even making money yet on the PS3 hardware?)

[dezzpayne]

Originally Posted by becks

The real numbers that matter are how much has each company made on the sales of these consoles and I would bet that MS would blow Sony out of the water (is Sony even making money yet on the PS3 hardware?)

You honestly think MS has made money on the 360 hardware......I mean....really?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by becks

The real numbers that matter are how much has each company made on the sales of these consoles and I would bet that MS would blow Sony out of the water (is Sony even making money yet on the PS3 hardware?)

Actually one of the most interesting analysis I've seen shows that MS is so in the hole from the whole Xbox project (including original Xbox, 360, and money spent acquiring 1st party developers, marketing, the bungie thing, the RRD fiasco, etc) that it will *never* be net profitable for them. Ever. Something like 5-6 BILLION in the hole already. They make a tonne of revenue, but no profit.

The only reason they could attempt xbox at all is because a couple percent of every Windows license sold globally goes to support it..

[TorontoColin]

Originally Posted by 99semaj

Now, instead of rehashing the points made in so many similar flamed out threads, I'll offer a new perspective: I can really see Sony reclaiming top sales/profit spot in this generation solely based on the fact that its hardware has so much more headroom left in it versus the more tired X360. Neither party has made any money to sink into the next generation yet, so this will be interesting to see play out.

This seems to be a common opinion among a lot of people but it's not necessarily true. Multi-platform games still tend to perform nominally better on the 360 (not always but often). PS3 versions tend to have slightly better lighting effects while 360 versions tend to have slightly looking better textures (keep in mind I mean SLIGHTLY). The reason for this is the very unfriendly Cell processor design. It's bad enough that there have been recent reports that Sony is looking to scrap it for the PS4.

Only first party studios seem to really understand how to program for the Cell, for everyone else the 360 is far, far easier to code for because it's so similar to a PC. That (and MS's buckets of money) is why games like Mass Effect and Left4Dead make it to the 360. That's why some games (coughBayonettacough) perform better on the 360, and that's why very few multi-platform games will likely see a pronounced performance boost on the PS3 over the 360.

At the end of the day, assuming a new generation of consoles in 2012-2013, does anyone really think that either system will be miles ahead of the other? The days of that possibility are over, hardware sales will likely be within 10% difference, either way. The difference maker will be software sales, which is why the number I care far more about is attachment rate. Software is where they tend to make their money anyways.